On 15/01/2015 18:27, Martin Thomson wrote:
> This could be read to include WebAudio. Should the statements about
> stream processing be limited to the processing that is necessary for
> real-time communications or capture?
>
> I don't know what "Functional Component Functions" means.
>
> I can't see how "P2P Connection Functions" can be "independent of the
> network protocols used" without a lot more work.
This part is the same as in our current charter; I've been conservative
in changing stuff from our existing charter since it already went
through review and approval. Can you live with it? If not, can you make
specific suggestions of change?
> " HTMLMediaElement extension: MediaStream generation " is also likely
> to include <canvas> (I've already seen Firefox patches for it), so it
> probably needs a new name.
I've updated the draft charter to use the current name of the spec.
> I don't think that the WebRTC milestones are realistic.
We've updated the charter to push them further by 1 quarter; I'm not
sure what would count as realistic for you, but again, I'm hoping you
can live with this as our guesstimate for chartering purposes.
Since I'd like to proceed with the W3C management review of the charter
next week, I'd appreciate if you could indicate whether you can live
with the current draft. Thanks,
Dom